1 edit | Refuse the right to service Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service to potential customers. Why can't Cablevision? | |
|
 | | Re: Refuse the right to service said by sharksfan3:Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service to potential customers. Why can't Cablevision? Exactly. After all Verizon refuses service to potential customers by redlining. So if Cablevision wants to give them a taste of their own medicine, Verizon can swallow it whole. | |
|
 |  PathfinderDazed ConfusedPremium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Refuse the right to service said by VerizonSucks :said by sharksfan3:Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service to potential customers. Why can't Cablevision? Exactly. After all Verizon refuses service to potential customers by redlining. So if Cablevision wants to give them a taste of their own medicine, Verizon can swallow it whole. Where is this redlining taking place? Do you have proof? | |
|
| | | | Re: Refuse the right to service Where is this redlining taking place? Do you have proof?
Everywhere. Verizon even admitted it themselves that they don't want to service areas that they deem not proftiable. | |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1
1 edit | said by sharksfan3:Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service to potential customers. Why can't Cablevision? There's alot of apple and orange comparisons here. Sharing a network vs. sharing a channel. First off, Verizon IS required to share its copper network, per the 1996 telecommunications act. FiOS is their own proprietary (meaning that they paid for it themselves) network. So far the government has not weighed in on requiring them to share fiber. At some point they may.
But that has absolutely no relevence to the issue of sharing a channel. First off, CV is, to some extent, playing games. They're required to adhere to rules of distribution for channels that they own, just like other providers are. If Verizon starts its own channel, then guess what? They wouldn't be able to prevent CV from carrying it either. The reason that MSG SD is carried on FiOS is precisely because FCC regulation REQUIRES it. Verizon is trying to get the FCC to expand that to include the HD feed.
We can go back and forth all day over how owning a channel is the same as owning a distribution network. But they're NOT treated as one in the same either per regulation or the law. To treat them the same in these arguments is just erroneous. That's like saying 'well, Verizon has to share it's copper network, so they should be required to share their office space too!' One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other. | |
|
| | | Re: Refuse the right to service My thoughts on this..
I remember when CV started with the rainbow network and bought the garden, I also remember that VZ had an interest in video but not a green light to offer it. Why would they venture to buy the garden if they can't offer video.
News12 for instance, is different, that is cv's very own cable channel, I can see them making an argument there but not with content customers expect to see on any given system. I feel the gov didn't come down hard enough on cable systems in 1996, part of CV buying the garden should be that they were supposed to make sure that content would be accessable to all competitors. Now if this means they have to transmit it sat in HD fine, but it has to be accessible to all competitors. | |
|
 tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| said by sharksfan3:Many businesses reserve the right to refuse service to potential customers. I think this is a dissimilar situation. The owner of content should not also be the gatekeeper of first-mile connectivity.
Communication and programming need to be decoupled.
First-Mile access providers should be in business solely to deliver the bits.
Content providers should compete between other content providers regardless of how program is delivered.
/tom | |
|
|
|
